In all my time playing and running roleplaying games, one trend that I have consistently experienced is that the most enjoyable and exciting game sessions were those that were heavily improvisational in nature, often being almost entirely “made up on the spot”.
“I was introduced to D&D, and I am currently living in a campaign being refereed by Roger Lightly from Pasadena (now living in Churchill College Cambridge, UK). I found the first few games intensely enjoyable and exciting; I really lived the part and in my ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ found myself there – in the dungeon. My actions (and of course my thoughts about these actions) were dictated by real-life considerations and no thought of wargame mechanics entered my head to distract me from the ‘events’ going on.
However, on my first games, by browsing through the rules booklets and pestering Roger with questions, I picked up a rough idea of the game mechanics and it was this knowledge that, with its attendant realization that D&D was just another miniatures combat system (albeit a highly imaginative and distinctive one) broke the spell of perfect involvement I had been under until then.
Thus when I spoke [in a previous letter] of D&D not being so open-ended, you misunderstood me. I did not mean in terms of the long-term course of the campaign and the lives of the characters, but rather the possibilities inherent each fight, encounter, discovery, etc. These are still wide, but inevitably when you are aware of the rules, you play out each situation with an eye to obtaining the best odds/chances of survival, etc., considering the rules rather than the situation you are in.
To avoid this, I have decided that when I design and run my own dungeon I will not permit the players (people who do not know about D&D yet) to discover the rules. Of course this will put them at a great disadvantage, and I feel I may have to put over quite a bit of information in the form of legend/folklore/tales so that they will have some idea of what they are up against and what to try, but all without disclosing the game mechanics. Although learning-by-your-mistakes will be a harder way, I feel that it will be more enjoyable both for the players and the referee."
I see similarities between Eisen's Vow and your line of thinking. :)
Thank you for this comment, I hadn't heard of this letter before, but everything in it certainly rings true to me. I think there's a lot to be said for this mode of play. It occurs to me that knowledge of the game's rules and genre conventions is a bit like a safety net for the players, where they can say "oh, I know this creature being described is an Ogre, which has 4 + 1 HD, so I'm guaranteed to be able to knock it out with a Sleep spell if I need to".
This mechanics-focused game knowledge serves as a an insulator from the game world, which makes deeper immersion a bit more difficult. If the player truly has no knowledge of these "behind the scenes" elements, and has no option but to "play the world" as it's presented to them, I think that greater level of immersion is more easily attained.
I think one of the big advantages of OD&D is the lightweight nature of the ruleset, meaning that it is easily adapted and adjusted to a referee's own "home-made" game world. I find that I much prefer playing in a referee's own "home-made" game world or dungeon, compared to a pre-made "campaign setting" or published adventure module created by a third party as a commercial product.
As one of the players in your last PBP, I can attest to the fun, and the suspense, of having you as a referee ruling on the consequences of our actions when you asked, "What do you want to do next?" I truly felt part of the story, and it was an imaginative story. Whether my characters lived or died, or survived by the skin of their teeth, the story was always good.
Not many can survive an attack from a T-Rex that's on fire...
Sandy Eisen, in a letter to Gary Gygax:
“I was introduced to D&D, and I am currently living in a campaign being refereed by Roger Lightly from Pasadena (now living in Churchill College Cambridge, UK). I found the first few games intensely enjoyable and exciting; I really lived the part and in my ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ found myself there – in the dungeon. My actions (and of course my thoughts about these actions) were dictated by real-life considerations and no thought of wargame mechanics entered my head to distract me from the ‘events’ going on.
However, on my first games, by browsing through the rules booklets and pestering Roger with questions, I picked up a rough idea of the game mechanics and it was this knowledge that, with its attendant realization that D&D was just another miniatures combat system (albeit a highly imaginative and distinctive one) broke the spell of perfect involvement I had been under until then.
Thus when I spoke [in a previous letter] of D&D not being so open-ended, you misunderstood me. I did not mean in terms of the long-term course of the campaign and the lives of the characters, but rather the possibilities inherent each fight, encounter, discovery, etc. These are still wide, but inevitably when you are aware of the rules, you play out each situation with an eye to obtaining the best odds/chances of survival, etc., considering the rules rather than the situation you are in.
To avoid this, I have decided that when I design and run my own dungeon I will not permit the players (people who do not know about D&D yet) to discover the rules. Of course this will put them at a great disadvantage, and I feel I may have to put over quite a bit of information in the form of legend/folklore/tales so that they will have some idea of what they are up against and what to try, but all without disclosing the game mechanics. Although learning-by-your-mistakes will be a harder way, I feel that it will be more enjoyable both for the players and the referee."
I see similarities between Eisen's Vow and your line of thinking. :)
Thank you for this comment, I hadn't heard of this letter before, but everything in it certainly rings true to me. I think there's a lot to be said for this mode of play. It occurs to me that knowledge of the game's rules and genre conventions is a bit like a safety net for the players, where they can say "oh, I know this creature being described is an Ogre, which has 4 + 1 HD, so I'm guaranteed to be able to knock it out with a Sleep spell if I need to".
This mechanics-focused game knowledge serves as a an insulator from the game world, which makes deeper immersion a bit more difficult. If the player truly has no knowledge of these "behind the scenes" elements, and has no option but to "play the world" as it's presented to them, I think that greater level of immersion is more easily attained.
I think one of the big advantages of OD&D is the lightweight nature of the ruleset, meaning that it is easily adapted and adjusted to a referee's own "home-made" game world. I find that I much prefer playing in a referee's own "home-made" game world or dungeon, compared to a pre-made "campaign setting" or published adventure module created by a third party as a commercial product.
Great article. Highly enjoyed reading it. Hopefully, I can find time t read the further reading.
As one of the players in your last PBP, I can attest to the fun, and the suspense, of having you as a referee ruling on the consequences of our actions when you asked, "What do you want to do next?" I truly felt part of the story, and it was an imaginative story. Whether my characters lived or died, or survived by the skin of their teeth, the story was always good.
Not many can survive an attack from a T-Rex that's on fire...